Who wrote the bible?

herbiemcc

This may sound basic but it's one of the things that always troubled me as a child.

In lots of parts of the bible there are events taking place between two people when no one was there and yet they are reported.

I was by chance glancing at Revelations and like the rest it's full of "And I looked, and behold a white cloud" etc

Rev.14:13 mentions;

"And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write"

Is this the answer, that it's 'inspiration' that is written down?

PDN

Different books in the Bible were written by different people. Some books identify the author - but others don't.

Christians believe that the Holy Spirit inspired the authors (different Christians have different concepts of what is actually involved in inspiration) but that the authors own personalities and style shine through - we are not talking about any kind of mechanical dictation.

Some of what was written was received by direct inspiration - for example, the prophets spoke the words that God gave them. Others, such as the Gospel writers, wrote down their testimony as eye witnesses and/or gathered written and oral reports from other witnesses. Then the New Testament letters are obviously the product of theological reflection on the parrt of the writers.

hivizman

In the UK, Channel 4 is currently running on Sunday evenings at 7PM a series The Bible. It's a bit like the series last year Christianity: A History, with a number of well-known figures giving their takes on aspects of the Bible (there was a thread on this series in the Christianity forum), and several of the same people are down to present. Last week, the novelist Howard Jacobson discussed the creation stories of Genesis, and this week Rageh Omaar looks at Abraham.

There may be clues about the writing of the Bible, but as the programme is about to begin, I'm logging off now.

Pompey Magnus

herbiemcc wrote: »

This may sound basic but it's one of the things that always troubled me as a child.

In lots of parts of the bible there are events taking place between two people when no one was there and yet they are reported.

Well as far as the 27 books of the New Testament most scholars agree that the authors of just 8 books are known, these being the 7 Pastoral epistles of Paul and the Revelation of John of Patmos (although this is a homonymous book that became accepted by Christians as its author had the same first name as John, son of Zebedee).

There is still some debate in which some scholars argue that Paul wrote 2 Thesselonians or that Peter wrote 1 Peter, but that said there is not really any argument in favour of 2 Peter or 1 Timothy being actually written by Peter or Paul.

PDN wrote:

Christians believe that the Holy Spirit inspired the authors (different Christians have different concepts of what is actually involved in inspiration) but that the authors own personalities and style shine through - we are not talking about any kind of mechanical dictation.

Would this mean you reject the common view that some of the books in the NT are pseudonymous, as presumably God would never encourage someone to lie and pretend to be somebody else.

PDN

Charco wrote: »

Well as far as the 27 books of the New Testament most scholars agree that the authors of just 8 books are known, these being the 7 Pastoral epistles of Paul and the Revelation of John of Patmos (although this is a homonymous book that became accepted by Christians as its author had the same first name as John, son of Zebedee).

Charco, apologies for not responding to this sooner - too many things to do in the real world outside of boards.ie!

I've discovered that some sources, such as wikipedia, make sweeping claims about what 'most scholars' believe that are not well grounded in reality. The scholarly opinions on who wrote what are pretty diverse.

Would this mean you reject the common view that some of the books in the NT are pseudonymous, as presumably God would never encourage someone to lie and pretend to be somebody else.

Some writers, such as Bart Ehrman, present this as a simplistic choice between two options only:

a) The named individuals penned the books baring their names.
b) Someone else did so and falsely claimed to be an apostle.

In some cases this over-simplification can be ascribed to a lack of knowledge of scribal practices in Judaism and early Christianity - but in Ehrman's case he is certainly well enough educated (having studied under Bruce Metzger) to know that such an over-simplified dilemma is little more than a rhetorical trick.

In fact it is common knowledge among textual critics that editors would compile sayings of different rabbis or church leaders. Also, certain teachers used scribes who would write down their words on various subjects and then put them in thematic order and tidy up the grammar (I did something similar once when I acted as a ghost writer for a popular evangelical pastor's book).

So, for example, I would have no problem with the notion that somebody gathered some of Peter's sayings and wrote them down as a composite document bearing his name, rather than that the apostle sat down at a desk one day and wrote 2 Peter exactly as we have it now.

Fanny Cradock

Possibly along the same lines, but I've heard that it was acceptable practice for students/disciples to write in their teachers style. I'm not sure of the truth of this or how one was expected to decipher between the teacher and the student.

herbiemcc

I suppose maybe it goes back to the literalism debate but if it's true, does a student filling in for a teacher still produce the inerrant Word of God?

A gathering together and tidying up of documents sounds logistically fair but again it is bound to introduce errors or misreadings.

So is it therefore extensive study and a more 'holistic' approach to the books that is required to find the correct meaning?

seanybiker

I always thought it was matthew mark luke and john. Once I heard their names I just presumed they wrote the stories'v

Fanny Cradock

seanybiker wrote: »

I always thought it was matthew mark luke and john. Once I heard their names I just presumed they wrote the stories'v

The Gospel according to...

PDN

herbiemcc wrote: »

I suppose maybe it goes back to the literalism debate but if it's true, does a student filling in for a teacher still produce the inerrant Word of God?

The inerrantist view is not that everything that Peter or Paul wrote is inerrant - but rather that the 66 books that make up the Bible are inerrant. After all, Luke and Mark's Gospels have never been ascribed to apostles. The traditional view has generally been that Mark was a student of Peter.

A gathering together and tidying up of documents sounds logistically fair but again it is bound to introduce errors or misreadings.

No, I don't think it is bound to do any such thing. God was well able to guide authors /editors so as to avoid errors.

So is it therefore extensive study and a more 'holistic' approach to the books that is required to find the correct meaning?

Study helps. Understanding cultural backgrounds, the biblical languages etc. Certainly reading stuff in context helps.

Soul Winner

With regards to the Gospel records I suppose it is not impossible that somebody other than Matthew, Mark, Luke and John might have penned them and ascribed those names to them but common sense tells me that if frauds were going to go to the trouble of forging the names on their accounts that they would have used different names Like the Gospel of Peter or Phillip or Bartholomew, but we don't have that. What we have are names which are very low in the pecking order with the exception of John. Matthew was the tax collector that was hated, Luke is mentioned just three times in the whole New Testament and was a student of Paul and Mark wasn't even a disciple of Jesus. Why would frauds use such names? It is only when we come to the real phoney texts that we see the big boy's names being used, namely the Gnostic text of the second and third centuries. These real frauds had the right idea. They use names like Thomas, and Peter and so on, they just appear too late on the scene to be taken seriously by the established church of the time.

Turtwig

I was always under the impression that there that there multiple "authors" per some book. Or more correctly, there was one author, who had multiple scribes writing the story for Him as he went about his work. I think it was something like for some days luke would have scribe A writing for him and then several days later it might be scribe B. The differences would be subtle, but there is supposedly a change in writing styles that can be noticed that supports this view. Not only that but apparently it was the cultural norm at the time.

So I guess the answer is:
The authors didn't necessarily write it, but it's their word that's represented in it.

Feel me to correct me guys.

Pompey Magnus

Malty_T wrote:

Feel me to correct me guys.

I'll pass on that if ya don't mind .

I was always under the impression that there that there multiple "authors" per some book. Or more correctly, there was one author, who had multiple scribes writing the story for Him as he went about his work. I think it was something like for some days luke would have scribe A writing for him and then several days later it might be scribe B. The differences would be subtle, but there is supposedly a change in writing styles that can be noticed that supports this view. Not only that but apparently it was the cultural norm at the time.

It sounds interesting and I haven't come across this theory before but I would be slightly surprised if a text written down straight from dictation could be identified by slight differences tbh.

I also don't know about it being the norm at the time. I am currently reading through the personal letters of Cicero and the vast majority of these were written by himself, from what I have gathered so far it was only during his busy period as Consol that he resorted to mostly dictating letters, and when he did so he specified to the recipient that it was a scribe writing the letter (As did Paul). If a prominent Senator in Rome could spend time personally writing letters I don't see why some unknown Christian would feel the need to employ multiple scribes to write out Luke and Acts.

So I guess the answer is:
The authors didn't necessarily write it, but it's their word that's represented in it.

And occasionally the words of their sources that they copied for Matthew, Luke and John.

Fanny Cradock

Malty_T wrote: »

Feel me to correct me guys.

It's not that type of website, Malty.

Siteban for soliciting!

:pac:

Fanny Cradock

Charco wrote: »

If a prominent Senator in Rome could spend time personally writing letters I don't see why some unknown Christian would feel the need to employ multiple scribes to write out Luke and Acts.

Perhaps it was part of their education?

goose2005

seanybiker wrote: »

I always thought it was matthew mark luke and john. Once I heard their names I just presumed they wrote the stories'v

Those names don't appear on documents until quite a bit later. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_of_the_bible is a comprehensive list of the traditional authors and the opinions of modern scholars.

Fink Goddie

herbiemcc wrote: »

This may sound basic but it's one of the things that always troubled me as a child.

In lots of parts of the bible there are events taking place between two people when no one was there and yet they are reported.

I was by chance glancing at Revelations and like the rest it's full of "And I looked, and behold a white cloud" etc

Rev.14:13 mentions;

"And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write"

Is this the answer, that it's 'inspiration' that is written down?

Its written by uneducated people who thought the earth was flat.

Fanny Cradock

Fink Goddie wrote: »

Its written by uneducated people who thought the earth was flat.

What?

Turtwig

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

What?

Have a look at the sig.
"Team Jedward for life.":pac:

Fanny Cradock

What? :pac:

Fink Goddie

Malty_T wrote: »

Have a look at the sig.
"Team Jedward for life.":pac:

At least Jedward can be proved and have more influence over our lives than your so called 'god' does! :pac:

Turtwig

Fink Goddie wrote: »

At least Jedward can be proved and have more influence over our lives than your so called 'god' does! :pac:

Go on then prove Jedward, all I have ever done is seen them behind the screen of my tv. Have you met them for real?

Fink Goddie

Malty_T wrote: »

Go on then prove Jedward, all I have ever done is seen them behind the screen of my tv. Have you met them for real?

I have actually yeh, they're doing a signing in HMV Dundrum on Friday too if you want to meet them, prove it to yoursef

Fanny Cradock

Fink Goddie wrote: »

At least Jedward can be proved and have more influence over our lives than your so called 'god' does! :pac:

I've met a number of people who would disagree with you. Read the charter. Next time you post something like above you get infracted.

Turtwig

Fink Goddie wrote: »

I have actually yeh, they're doing a signing in HMV Dundrum on Friday too if you want to meet them, prove it to yoursef

How can you be certain it was them though, instead of some advanced technological doppelgangers or illusion?

herbiemcc

I believe in Jedward.

I feel sorry for you if you can't see the truth - but then it's just a faith thing I suppose.

I pray to them and it works.

You should try it !!!

Fink Goddie

Malty_T wrote: »

How can you be certain it was them though, instead of some advanced technological doppelgangers or illusion?

Trust me, there is only one John and Edward LOL, they're two of a kind!

herbiemcc wrote: »

I believe in Jedward.

I feel sorry for you if you can't see the truth - but then it's just a faith thing I suppose.

I pray to them and it works.

You should try it !!!

You pray for Jedward?? What truth?

Fink Goddie

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I've met a number of people who would disagree with you. Read the charter. Next time you post something like above you get infracted.

I read the charter!!!

The purpose of this forum is to discuss Christian belief in general, and specific elements of it, between Christians and non-Christians alike
I answered the OP

While posting controversial questions to stimulate debate is acceptable: I didnt bring up Jedward, I wasnt taken seriously because i like Jedward, you slag my Jedward i'll take a pop at your god but i like this spin on christianity, Jedward or God? Who do you believe in.

Please be honest about your faith: I was, I dont have any.

PDN

Thread locked since idiocy has taken over.